Just to be clear, it seems there really was a fight against average Jews but the orchestration was done in collaboration with Nazis and the unlikely 6 million figure of deaths might actually be closer to 100,000?

Just curious what we've "found" so far about Holocaust revisionism.

Since CryptoAnarchist was here trying to fan "the evil Zionists did it" meme, I am now even more suspicious of going overboard with the "evil Jews" paradigm.

This thread will be the receptacle of ALL forum postings which the Cluesforum administrators will deem irrelevant/not pertinent to any given forum thread. Whenever a post/or a series of posts appear to stray/deviate/digress from the subject of any given forum discussion, they will be moved over here.

This does not necessarily mean that the discussion material moved over here is in itself uninteresting - or unworthy of attention. In fact, some of it may be particularly acute/trailblazing/pioneering - and fully pertinent to the prime scope of this forum: to expose the rampant media deceptions of our world - and all their related corrolaries.

However, I trust everyone will understand and appreciate our wish to keep any given forum topic free of unrelated posts and undue digressions. Undoubtedly - and inevitably - this DERAILING ROOM itself will eventually grow into a hodgepodge of disconnected topics - yet any observant member will be able to make out (thanks to the headline/title featured on the top of each post) exactly where any given post originated.

Thanks for everyone's kind comprehension

Simon ShackPS: If any given subject found in the DERAILING ROOM is deemed important by a Cluesforum member, he/she is free to open a new topic in the appropriate forum section. It will be, as always, moderated for relevance by the forum administrators - and kept running if deemed adequately researched and documented.

From patsy McVeigh to pure virtual characters, 15 years later in Germany's 2009 school masscre (1) and beyond that, 16 years later in the US, to not only pure virtual character Jareed Loughner, created based on Glenn Beck (2), but also both times to pure virtual massacres. (3)As for Brevink the illuminati use a "complex" (4) combination, with three diferent faces presented as early as 25 July 2011, with the climax not on February 6 2012, as they show for the first time footage of "killer" (5), but much earlier, on 25 July 2011, when besides reducing the number of "victims" of the Utoya island "shooting" from 90 to 68, the illuminati set another milestone in the impersonation type of jokes: they present simultaneously the third face and footage of the real person used to create that face. And that is ... the norwegian policeman at the press conference (6).

(3) Norway bombing and "shooting" = 911 without victims (except for one girl from Iraq and the stepbrother of crown princess Mette-Maritt)

(4) The illuminati first suggested that the first face, younger but not too different the second face released July 23, wearing the traditional Masonic apron of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons and posing with guns, were also pure virtual characters.

(5) More precisely of the second face used to impersonate the "killer". This fact immediately reveals that the first face (younger look) that was released was a creation photoshopped from this real second face.

(6) 25 July 2011, press conference with three norwegian policemen.(1): they present a third face used to represent the "shooter", his photo inside a police car supposedly on his way to the court. As this photo of this new third face is presented, the screen shows only one "other" person: one of the three policemen.Why? Again the answer to explain these illuminati jokles is the same: the illuminati religion.

I doubt there is such thing, or that this name has any real value for the elite -- but even if, I would advise against mentioning the "illuminati" without proper surrounding sentences & words aimed at casting at least some reasonable doubt over the whole thing, or making it clear that it is nothing but an opinion -- certainly not an acknowledged fact.

We never agreed that these alleged "illuminati" were behind this event or others. Who demonstrated (I'm not saying proved) they were? Where this comes from? Why do you assume you can slip this concept by like this?

If you, MattMarriott, think you have evidence in this sense, first and foremost give us such evidence (which, of course, should include proof that such group actually exists under that denomination somewhere): otherwise please do not use the word as if it actually identified something we all agreed on.

I don't think it wise to reuse categories passed over by counter-information agents, without tearing them apart first assuming they are disinformation devices.

If we want to operate honestly and without pretending to have insider information that we don't have, we must admit that at this stage there is no way for any of us to be sure about anything that goes on up at those levels. Zionists, freemasons, the military, the CIA and groups of power of sorts: it is a whole mess of true and false that we can handle only with a lot of ifs and maybes.

Like Oscar Wilde said, "The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true". (Which I think would make a wonderful motto and admonition for our research, actually).

nonhocapito wrote:Like Oscar Wilde said, [b]"The things one feels absolutely certain about are never true".[/b] (Which I think would make a wonderful motto and admonition for our research, actually).

Too right, it should be our motto!

More Wilde.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. (As we've seen with all the trolls, shills, and bad actors infesting our forum - and the world - like cockroaches.)

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible. (This is why we needn't worry about the existence (?) of the Illuminati, or any other similar ilk.)

I doubt there is such thing, or that this name has any real value for the elite -- but even if, I would advise against mentioning the "illuminati" without proper surrounding sentences & words aimed at casting at least some reasonable doubt over the whole thing, or making it clear that it is nothing but an opinion -- certainly not an acknowledged fact.

We never agreed that these alleged "illuminati" were behind this event or others. Who demonstrated (I'm not saying proved) they were? Where this comes from? Why do you assume you can slip this concept by like this?

If you, MattMarriott, think you have evidence in this sense, first and foremost give us such evidence (which, of course, should include proof that such group actually exists under that denomination somewhere): otherwise please do not use the word as if it actually identified something we all agreed on.

Your are not questioning the name of the secret society, which, unlike freemasonry, Bilderberg or Skull & Bones, was never officially stated by one of its members. You name the perps "elite" as opposed to the secret society of the illuminati (who are behind freemasonry, Bilderberg & Skull & Bones). So you are in denial that the basic fact.The basic fact is that ONLY total control by one and the same secret society of media, politics and depending entities (from judges to directions of sport federations), explains the basic facts of:

- terror acts like 9/11, with media inserting a "plane" "live", shortly before hundreds of firemen are ordered to enter the chambers to be nuked "live" on TV, etc;- "elections" with voting machines giving Romney in the winner role in Florida 800,000 votes although less than 5,000 people voted for him or giving McCain in the loser role in the US 58 million votes although less than 5 million votes (a simple poll will confirm this), despite the fact that he was "opposing" a guy (who was already an adult when he was re-) named "Hussein Obama II" - in other words where ALL "candidates" are playing a scripted role;- mega frauds like the Megamillions and Euromillions lottery "drawings" "live" on TV, week after week for years now;http://lottery-for-dummies.blogspot.com/- a "justice" that for instance has sentenced some of the greatest sports champions, from runner Ben Johnson to cyclist Alberto Contador, based on false accusations and manufactured "evidence";http://doping-conspiracy.blogspot.com/- etc, etc, etc.

MattMarriott wrote:Your are not questioning the name of the secret society, which, unlike freemasonry, Bilderberg or Skull & Bones, was never officially stated by one of its members. You name the perps "elite" as opposed to the secret society of the illuminati (who are behind freemasonry, Bilderberg & Skull & Bones). So you are in denial that the basic fact.The basic fact is that ONLY total control by one and the same secret society of media, politics and depending entities (from judges to directions of sport federations), explains the basic facts of:- etc, etc, etc.

Using the word "elite" means taking a word from the english vocabulary and using in a proper, generic way. It equates to say "pigs in charge" or "powers that be".Using the word "illuminati" means using a concept upon which, like I said, there must be a previous agreement. It equates to saying "the reptilians". We try not to throw these ideas around unless we dedicate a whole lot of time to present our line of reasoning with caution and clarity.

"Illuminati" comes directly from Alex Jones' lines, thus it is reasonable to think that it is a false screen-word behind which other more real words are hidden -- or a smoke signal to make us look in the wrong direction.

Listing bad things that happened or hinting to super secret powers that control everything does not constitute proof or demonstration that the use of the word "illuminati" is in any way proper.

It also does not prove that there is only one pyramid and one secret society at the top, by the way.See these are not things you can prove. There is no other way to treat them but with doubting sentences, I am afraid.

Two are the possibilities: either you are here to disrupt this forum with disinfo taken from fake conspiracy theories OR you are using such devices automatically and naively, without stopping to question the credibility of any words you use and statement you make.

In both cases you are on the wrong track for the requirements of our forum.

nonhocapito wrote:"Illuminati" comes directly from Alex Jones' lines, thus it is reasonable to think that it is a false screen-word behind which other more real words are hidden -- or a smoke signal to make us look in the wrong direction.

I referred to the illuminati as early as September 1998, in the CNN "Pinochet arrested" board, one of the key psy-operations preparing the "humanitarian" bombing of Serbia.Since when does CIA psy-op AleCIA Jones refer to the illuminati? Answer is the same as to the question: since when does the mass media refer to the illuminati.

As for the rest, it is clear the difference between our views:- you think that operations like 911, Oslo, London 7/7, Madrid 3/11 or Arizona Mass Shooting are possible without being orchestrated by "an organization whose activities and inner functioning are concealed from non-members" (Wikipedia's definition of secret society). I do not. And as obvious, it is in all cases the same organization.So the name of that organization is irrelevant and I do not understand why you focus your criticism on me naming them the illuminati.

By the way, I would be interested to read your explanation of how any of these events could have been executed by "a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and/or political power" (Wikipedia's definition of elite).

MattMarriott wrote:As for the rest, it is clear the difference between our views:- you think that operations like 911, Oslo, London 7/7, Madrid 3/11 or Arizona Mass Shooting are possible without being orchestrated by "an organization whose activities and inner functioning are concealed from non-members" (Wikipedia's definition of secret society). I do not. And as obvious, it is in all cases the same organization.So the name of that organization is irrelevant and I do not understand why you focus your criticism on me naming them the illuminati.

By the way, I would be interested to read your explanation of how any of these events could have been executed by "a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth and/or political power" (Wikipedia's definition of elite).

MattMariott, you are not understanding my posts, you are simply making assumptions flying autopilot. You also fail to understand that this forum is not your average battleground, where you can throw ideas around to impress people without having to defend your statements with rational arguments.

If you have been referring to the "illuminati" since 1998, I guess you have been passing pure speculations as facts for over a decade.

Unfortunately attributing to the "illuminati" any fishy, manipulative, deceptive event, without even feeling the need to explain why you flash that name and not another, taints your research. You are either taking a shortcut, presenting your findings as if they were much more complete and exhaustive than they are, because you name the culprit with such unexplained certainty -- or you are deliberately misinforming the public, making sure that whoever is spooked by those events will look in that particular direction, where incidentally there is nothing to see.

If "the name of the organization is irrelevant" then don't name that organization or act as if we all agreed on its nature and name. "Illuminati" might be a good useful toy on your blogs, not here.Let's see how you manage to make your posts interesting without this prop.

Albeit a bit out of time, I feel the need to clarify my last two posts above, that perhaps could be read in the wrong terms:

I don't necessarily deny the existence of the "Illuminati" --nor it is my intention (or place) to censor this topic on this forum."Illuminati" is a flattering adjective that means "enlightened", and I guess it goes to my head when I read such complementary terms to describe the control freaks maniacs that try to dupe the world.But as I have explained, my only concern is to make sure that this concept isn't handled with too much certainty and automatism -- because there is too much ambiguity around it. And more so knowing that it has been used for so long in "conspiracy theory" (that's true, long before Alex Jones): something that should caution us from adopting it in the first place.